Control and the Health Effects of Work–Family Conflict: A Longitudinal Test of Generalized Versus Specific Stress Buffering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stress associated with work-to-family conflict (WFC) and family-to-work conflict (FWC) is well documented. However, surprisingly little is known about the resources that moderate the effects of work–family conflict on health over time. Using four waves of panel data from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study (2011–2017; n = 11,349 person-wave observations), we compare how a core psychosocial resource (personal mastery) and a salient organizationally based resource (schedule control) moderate the health effects of WFC and FWC. After establishing these health effects related to distress and physical symptoms, we discover that mastery has generalized stress-buffering functions whereby it alleviates the health effects of both WFC and FWC. In contrast, schedule control has asymmetrical moderating functions: It attenuates the health effects of WFC only. These findings elaborate and sharpen the scope of resources as moderators in the stress process model—and we integrate these ideas with other conceptual models like the job demands-resources model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".